http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: HIRA LAL AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       06/09/1996

BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      Heard the counsel for the parties.      We are  of opinion  that the learned District Judge who heard the  appeal  filed  by  the  State  and    the  cross- objections filed  by the  respondents was  not competent  to award solatium  and interest  as per  provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (as amended by the 1984 Amendment Act). Accordingly, we  delete the award of solatium and also award of interest at the rate and for the periods mentioned in the order of the learned District Judge. We, however, affirm the quantum of  compensation awarded  by the  Arbitrator at  Rs. 3.61 lacs  (excluding the amount of Rs. 72037.85 paise which already been  paid to  the respondents  in the  year  1982). Having regard  to the  facts  and circumstances of the case, however, we  direct that  the said  amount of  Rs. 3.61 lacs shall carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent  simple from the date  of the  decree of  the learned  Subordinate Judge, i.e., the  date on  which the learned Subordinate Judge made the award  a rule  of the  Court. The said interest shall be payable till the date of payment.      We  must  mention  that  the  concession  made  by  the Government Advocate  before the  Learned District Judge that the respondents  are entitled  to solatium  and interest  as provided in  the Land  Acquisition Act  1894 (as  Amended in 1984)  was   a  totally   unwarranted  concession.  Being  a concession on  a question  of law.  It cannot  be said to be binding  upon  the  appellant.  It  is  surprising  how  the Government Advocate  could have made such a concession which is totally  untenable in  law  and  is  prejudicial  to  the interest of  the partie she was representing. We are equally of the  opinion that  this was  not a  matter in  which  the Revision Petition  filed by  the appellant  should have been dismissed in limine by the High Court .      The appeal  is accordingly allowed in part in the above terms. No costs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2